Did you know we have a Facebook page? If the site is down, it is a great place to get any information about what is up.https://www.facebook.com/thetradersden

I think most of you know we are pretty relaxed in allowing people to say what they want around here. Most of the time, it is easy to just ignore someone you don't agree with (or who annoys you), but sometimes you may want to take a more drastic measure and just not see those posts.
I just wanted to let everyone know there are three ways to ignore things on here:

13. Remasters are NOT allowed as of June 1, 2011.
While we understand that remastering a recording may improve the listening experience for the user, we also understand that every user has a different set of ears and a different set up for listening to their shows and thus there is no one-size-fits-all remastering that can be done to a recording to improve it for everyone. This rule is not set up to bar a taper from the little tweeks they apply prior to releasing their show, it is set up to bar Joe Blow from coming along and taking a master recording (or even a who-knows-where-it's-from recording) and applying who-knows-what to it because it then sounds better on *their* system to *their* ears and they want to share it. (There may be a couple of exceptions to this rule, but that will be on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from one of our ABT moderators.)

this seems like a huge waste of time, or a make work project for the volunteers here.

let the downloaders determine what looks and sound better..... micromanaging everything just spoils the experience for everyone. Its not like its a waste of bandwidth for anyone when there is no share ratio.

what about remasters from the original taper? i've been in the process of remastering some of my early recordings now that i know more about eq'ing & mastering than i did when i first started taping. i plan on uploading these and was actually about to put one of them up.

Hi Ghostwheel,
I think this pertains to someone who does a hit and run of a perfectly satisfactory pull of some recent performance, then immediately "dumps" his altered version into the pool without consideration for the original taper's efforts. As I understand it, we don't need to step on a perfectly good recording without any "real" improvement. At a minimum, we should ask the taper about these tweaks to see what he thinks. It is likely that a certain amount of mitigation has already occurred... further tweaks may be outright destructive.

It will put a few extra pm's in the mod's inboxes... but it will keep the our pool a little cleaner, cooler and safer for tapers who still want to share their bliss.

Drgiggles1 and Ghostwheel, yes, those would still be covered by this rule. You can apply for an exception by the ABT mods. While these will not be common, they will be granted when felt appropriate. And Ghostwheel, working with the raw recording master, yours is more-or-less like a new transfer...similar, but not the same. Noted a such in the torrent, it should likely be OK.

cicada, we've been knocking around on this rule for over a year now. So it's not really based on anything recent, although a few certain people did help bring it about.

Archive625, we feel it is neither busy work nor a waste of time. As stated in the FAQ, we feel TTD is about quality, not quantity, and we fashion the rules to reflect that belief. Members are free to upload or download all the remasters they like, just not here. They are allowed at a number of other sites (most of which do have ratio requirements).

Ghost -- i'll be the first to vouch for you and any "remastering" you might do...i've got quite a few recordings that i seeded raw, as i haven't had time to do a proper mixdown on em...that is quite different from what we want to prevent here with this rule

like rspencer said, we simply want to continue our motto of quality before quantity, and we all know that 95% of the "remasters" out there are bedroom amateurs who download and remaster every damn recording they get...they neither know what they're doing, nor are they truly benefiting the recording [despite what they and a few others may think]

I put this up before the rule > http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...ad.php?t=92161, but I just want to understand. Since the speed is corrected and there were various other tweaks, I should send a pm request to one of the mods (in the future)? I have no idea if PRRP got permission to work on this from team Lapinski

I love how people throw around the term remaster without any regard for it actually means. If I record something (audio wise that is) what is initially recorded on the master analog or digital is a raw recording. It has to be mastered first before it can be remastered. If I put it up here and specifically say it is raw then any Tom, Dick or Harry can master it anyway they want it to sound and you by your own rules have to allow it because it is not a remaster but technically a mastered copy. On top of that 27 different people can take that raw recording and master it 27 different ways and you'd have to allow them all because they are all unique masterings.

we're using "remaster" in regards to the common trading circle use of the term, not the actual technical term...kinda like how an AUD+SBD mix is referred to as a "matrix" in trading circles, even though technically speaking it's not a true audio matrix

so no, we will not be allowing the 27 various mixes...the whole point is if a raw or old recording is gonna be messed with by some random user to "make it better" [to their ears on their listening set up], fine but it shouldn't be spread around...cuz of the hundreds of folks out there "remastering" these recordings, there are only a small handful who have the knowledge and gear to properly mix said recordings

I love how people throw around the term remaster without any regard for it actually means. If I record something (audio wise that is) what is initially recorded on the master analog or digital is a raw recording. It has to be mastered first before it can be remastered. If I put it up here and specifically say it is raw then any Tom, Dick or Harry can master it anyway they want it to sound and you by your own rules have to allow it because it is not a remaster but technically a mastered copy. On top of that 27 different people can take that raw recording and master it 27 different ways and you'd have to allow them all because they are all unique masterings.

Uh, no, I don't think so. A "matrix" as it is referred to is a blend of two sources (sbd/aud, or even two complementary aud sources...) and that's much different than taking a single source and eq-ing and processing that single file to make your re-bastardization - I mean remaster...

I think I know what incident prompted this rule. I don't think it will be a widespread draconian rule to ban some "legacy" remasters that circulate, and I hope that in some cases that new remasters of things from bootleg labels on silvers that come out with flaws would still be good (depending on who's doing them I guess). As stated earlier, it is to stop people from being jerkoffs about taking some fresh recording that just went up and altering it to allow the undeserving dick to re-post it and take credit where it isn't due.

It kind of sucks to HAVE to make a rule like that, just to keep away the goofs that take advantage. I'm hoping that if someone genuinely has corrected major flaws (speed corrections, gaps patched, blends with alternate sources, etc.) will be given proper consideration.

In other words, this "rule" should be applied with a light touch...

__________________"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (1937-2005)

this seems like a huge waste of time, or a make work project for the volunteers here.

let the downloaders determine what looks and sound better..... micromanaging everything just spoils the experience for everyone. Its not like its a waste of bandwidth for anyone when there is no share ratio.